Another Immortals Handbook thread

[Nifelhein]

Twisting wording is not actually what is supposed to happen, but I am not willing to address the impressions and misconceptions people have over lawyers and their job, although I can easily say that literal wording is not the most common conception of law in my country for quite sometime, it has been during dictatorships and despotic governments, though, Brazil has been into a military kind of those until around 1980, which is the year i was born, by the way.

Now I can easily say that having two nams and make the more exotic and interesting one and the more common or OGC derived one closed and open, respectively, is not breaking any kind of issue with the OGL, and I would say it should be the best way to address this issue and oen that leaves both you and your audience with clear basis.

Proper names usuay are product identities, like Thyrin there seem to be indeed, what i find an actual problem is that people tned to restrict themselves to the OGl when they could easily expand with the suggestion Otu gave, give guidelines on how to change the PI to the approppriate term.

I love Midnight, for example, and the Wildlander has one ability that has the term "The Shadow in the North", which is a PI, there is nothing worng in me taking that ability and posting it on a website, but there is a problem with the PI term, if I change it to something else, though, I might end up with a meaningless writing... the best thing you can do is to avoid using any terms you want to have as PI in the open content writing, or at least, mark them with italics, for example.

And CR2000, I must say you are right, but I what i do see as politness is that a company usually has a lawyer to consult with and although a lawsuit does cost money it is also rather common to have companies address any violation of their rights as threats of lawsuit and absolutely nothing else.

Anyway, i think we should get back to the bestiary and the IH as whole, as much as i like laws stuff i recognize most people are bored to death with it...

 

[S'mon]

Usually system mechanics have to be made OGL, this is because they are derivative work from the SRD and can only be published undedr the OGL,

I don't think that (either statement) is true. Nothing in the OGL says anything about a minimum OGC requirement. Nor are most of Craig's IH mechanics derivative of the SRD, some of them are derivative of my original Worship Points System (which he credits, so that's fine with me!)
I'm just looking at the copy of the OGL at the back of Lost City of Barakus (which scenario incidentally includes an uncredited Silver Golem from Creature Collection by S&S!), it doesn't seem to require that any content at all be made OGC. Personally I would advise making at least the IH mechanics OGC and it seems like good practice to make the names & stat blocks OGC while keeping the descriptions PI, that way other authors can use your monsters in other scenarios but Mongoose (eg!) can't just republish the whole IH.

 

[Knight Otu]

I don't think that (either statement) is true. Nothing in the OGL says anything about a minimum OGC requirement. Nor are most of Craig's IH mechanics derivative of the SRD, some of them are derivative of my original Worship Points System (which he credits, so that's fine with me!)

The minimum OGC requirement stems from the d20STL, to which you must abide if you want to belong to the "cool club" and be allowed to add the d20 System symbol on the cover of your book.

A minimum of 5% of the text (word count or letter count) of a Covered Product must be Open Game Content and must comply with the terms of the Open Game License version 1.0a.

I'm just looking at the copy of the OGL at the back of Lost City of Barakus (which scenario incidentally includes an uncredited Silver Golem from Creature Collection by S&S!), it doesn't seem to require that any content at all be made OGC.

Is Barakus released under the Sword and Sorcery label? I believe, but cannot back it up right now, that a company can allow another company to not cite the source (but probaly only that source, not everything else from section 15) in the Section 15. Thus, a company (in this case White Wolf) could give itself that permission.

Nifelheim: I hope I didn't offend with my "twisting words" remark. It was not my intention to say that this is what lawyers do, typically or otherwise.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey guys!

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.

I don't think that (either statement) is true. Nothing in the OGL says anything about a minimum OGC requirement. Nor are most of Craig's IH mechanics derivative of the SRD, some of them are derivative of my original Worship Points System (which he credits, so that's fine with me!)

Well I would say the size changes are derivative, though thats probably about it.

I'm okay with making the density, virtual size, universal damage and feats OGC as well.

I'm just looking at the copy of the OGL at the back of Lost City of Barakus (which scenario incidentally includes an uncredited Silver Golem from Creature Collection by S&S!), it doesn't seem to require that any content at all be made OGC. Personally I would advise making at least the IH mechanics OGC and it seems like good practice to make the names & stat blocks OGC while keeping the descriptions PI, that way other authors can use your monsters in other scenarios but Mongoose (eg!) can't just republish the whole IH.

Regarding the monsters, I'm not sure what to do for the best. My initial idea was that the pdfs won't be OGC, but that I would reverse that decision for the printed version. For the Bestiary, naturally that wouldn't include the descriptive text (simply the name, stats and combat information. Not the descriptions, tactics or adventure ideas).

Does that make sense?

 

[CRGreathouse]

What parts of the work are non-original though?

If theres a problem with it then I have 30 days to correct it, following notification.

I think notification only applies to the d20 STL, and only then if you've sent in the regestration card.

Regardless of the actual legalities of the matter (S'mon cites an important case in this respect), WotC/Hasbro believes that creating new D&D-compatible material is an infringement of copyright law without license, so not using the OGL is an invitation to get a letter from their lawyers. I'd prefer that this not happen... presumably a legal battle isn't in your interests.

The WotC 'party line' is that creating monster stats, spell stats, etc. in the D&D format is enough of itself to constitute a derivative work.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Nor are most of Craig's IH mechanics derivative of the SRD, some of them are derivative of my original Worship Points System (which he credits, so that's fine with me!)

Just to clarify (for the bystanders; I'm sure you already know!), a work can be considered a derivative of more than one other work, so it's possible for the IH to derive from the SRD as well as your earlier work. In fact, I believe this to be the case -- the ability scores, their modifiers, the saves, their particular formatting, the skills and their respective synergies, the boilerplate language on the special attacks and qualities, and so forth are the same, and the collection of all of these disparare elements form a convincing case that the IH derives from the either the SRD or the PH and MM. Certainly there's a good argument that this much 'borowing' is 17.1.107 fair use (per the case you mentioned above), but it's not clear-cut -- and this is where caution should be used in my opinion, as WotC has shown several times that it's not above sending lawyers to enforce its copyrights in the d20 publishing world.

(Again, I'm not a lawyer in the US or elsewhere.)

 

[S'mon]

The minimum OGC requirement stems from the d20STL, to which you must abide if you want to belong to the "cool club" and be allowed to add the d20 System symbol on the cover of your book.

Is Barakus released under the Sword and Sorcery label? I believe, but cannot back it up right now, that a company can allow another company to not cite the source (but probaly only that source, not everything else from section 15) in the Section 15. Thus, a company (in this case White Wolf) could give itself that permission.

Barakus is Necromancer Games, distributed by Troll Lord, so they should really have credited S&S for the silver golem (they reproduce the stat block). Just an oversight.

The d20STL of course is much more restrictive than the OGL and personally I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, mostly because unlike the OGL WoTC can change its terms at any time.

 

[S'mon]

Regarding the monsters, I'm not sure what to do for the best. My initial idea was that the pdfs won't be OGC, but that I would reverse that decision for the printed version. For the Bestiary, naturally that wouldn't include the descriptive text (simply the name, stats and combat information. Not the descriptions, tactics or adventure ideas).

Does that make sense?

Well, I can't see any harm in letting other authors cut & paste stat blocks from the pdf version, as long as they credit the Immortals Handbook. But it makes sense, sure - it's your work, you can release as much or as little to OGC as you wish.

 

[S'mon]

Just to clarify (for the bystanders; I'm sure you already know!), a work can be considered a derivative of more than one other work, so it's possible for the IH to derive from the SRD as well as your earlier work.

Sure, I agree. Although Allen established that games mechanics per se aren't protectable (Allen wasn't the Monopoly case BTW, sorry my bad) there's a reasonable case that the format of monster statblocks is protectable IP. Under UK law & under US law following Allen, it is definitely possible to create games supplements that don't infringe the IP of the game creators, but the IH is clearly intended as an OGL release so really the important thing Krusty is to stick an OGL in the back of the .pdf you're currently selling. Right now just put "No part of this work is designated as Open Game Content" & AFAICS you retain all rights while complying with the OGL. You can revise it later for the final release.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

Sure, I agree. Although Allen established that games mechanics per se aren't protectable (Allen wasn't the Monopoly case BTW, sorry my bad) there's a reasonable case that the format of monster statblocks is protectable IP. Under UK law & under US law following Allen, it is definitely possible to create games supplements that don't infringe the IP of the game creators, but the IH is clearly intended as an OGL release so really the important thing Krusty is to stick an OGL in the back of the .pdf you're currently selling. Right now just put "No part of this work is designated as Open Game Content" & AFAICS you retain all rights while complying with the OGL. You can revise it later for the final release.

Will do.

Thanks everyone for the help.

I may make the monsters OGC even for the (official) pdf release (under the previous terms) and see how that goes.